I have a 'pitch' pdf that we sent to Pick me up and geoff, Rod and I have a closed blog with material on it that may help describe some of the ideas that we are talking about - Your point is really interesting because there is, as we know, an underlying cultural assumption about Illustration. I suppose what is really interesting for me is that we try hard, as educators, to define the value systems, processes, conceptual/ethical drivers for the subject. You have to do this to design a course but the reality of Illustration as a product is that it is essentially ephemeral - the understanding of the subject/discipline in the minds of those producing it is often super intuitive - so the capacity to talk about it is undermined - none of this is meant as a criticism, just observation. Your point about who retains rights and the nature of who employs whom is also interesting - One of the things that we would like to avoid is the descent in to bemoaning this relationship - it can easily skew any more abstracted discussion about the subject.
I suppose that living in a culture that ostensibly values words over images, trying to raise the status/awareness of/level of understanding of the nuances/complexities/skills and conceptual discipline required to produce good visual communicative [aesthetically appealing - in the sense that imagery appeals to and augments the senses] work is difficult.
In simple terms we wanted the opportunity to define the subject. The remit is to have an open ended, non conclusive event that supports the discussion about the subject.
Originally I had wanted to help establish a critical framework - thinking like an academic and wanting to give Illustration its due status alongside Graphic design and the Fine Arts - but AH rightly suggested that Illustration is kind of about everything but other Illustration - maybe this is the point?
From: luke best
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Darryl Clifton
Subject: illustration debate
hope your well
I'm not really sure what form/direction the illustration debate you, Rod and Geoff are working on is taking
but it was interesting to hear what you and Geoff had to say the other night.
i was talking to C last night about her work and people like Jiggery Pokery and whether they consider themselves illustrators
also whether clients see them and appreciate them as illustrators.
i know there is discussion around the new digital platforms and how that will effect illustration which is interesting
( although at the moment it just seems to be applied in a manner that doesn't really work with the interface)
but there are still really new territories for illustration, that although are seen a lot, are still trying to get established.
for example with C's work - 3D work in generally, if its photographed- the photographer owns the rights- gets re-usage etc because they make it an 'image', she has started to change this old system but it does feel that illustration is always playing second fiddle to a photographer, designer, art director.
I guess my long winding point is that there is a lot of illustrators working in new territories and its interesting that most of them still value their illustration education, think of themselves as illustrators but the industry/ public aren't aware of this. i think this is where there is a gap and why people still have to use Quentin Blake(great as he is) as a reference when explaining what illustration is.
sorry if this is a bit random, a slightly non directed thought
have a good weekend
Posted by Darryl Clifton at 11:28